Connor Et Al. v. Waller, Governor of Mississippi, Et Al.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 22 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall (1976), Connor v. Finch (1977)
24 federal appellate · 22 district · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Allen v. State Board of Elections · Mahan v. Howell · Chapman v. Meier · Perkins v. Matthews · Georgia v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will not be effective as law until and unless cleared.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without prejudice to the authority of the District Court, if it should become appropriate, to entertain a proceeding to require the conduct of the 1975 elections pursuant to a court-ordered reapportionment plan that complies with this Court's decisions in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 , 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973); Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549 , 92 S.Ct. 656, 30 L.Ed.2d 704 (1972); and Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 , 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 5, in providing for submission to the Attorney General as an alternative to seeking a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, imposes on the Attorney General what is essentially a judicial function. Therefore, the burden of proof on the submitting authority is the same in submitting changes to the Attorney General as it would be in submitting changes to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Attorney General shall base his decision on a review of material presented by the submitting authority, relevant information provided by individuals or groups, and the results of any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice. If the Attorney General is satisfied that the submitted change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will not object to the change and will so notify the submitting authority. If the Attorney General determines that the submitted change has a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will enter an objection and will so notify the submitting authority. If the evidence as to the purpose or effect of the change is conflicting and the Attorney General is unable to resolve the conflict within the 60-day period, he shall, consistent with the above-described burden of proof applicable in the District Court, enter an objection and so notify the submitting authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harper v. Levi
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.